Cheron:Had a coworker who rented a few rooms in his house to another family. Zoning informed him that his house was single family so he adopted his 35 year old boarder. He even brought them to company picnics

Didn't some gays used to do this to establish legal rights they couldn't otherwise get? Or was that just in some cheesy movie I saw?

The Flexecutioner:the phonetics of "phurst poast" is filtered because it was common for people to simply post as quickly as possible that phrase for speedy kudos, rather than have anything relevant to post.

Well THAT explains it then! (I totally forgot about the days when such a phrase was commonly, and annoyingly, used.

But back to my question---who's the chick with the creepy looking guy in the fp?

Fark_Guy_Rob:People have been against inter-racial marriage.People have been against gay marriage.People have been against polygamous marriage.And people have been against incestuous marriage.

And it's all just close-minded people forcing their viewpoints, their lifestyle on others.

Consenting adults should be afforded the same rights as everyone else. Anything less is wrong.

Well, it depends on what you mean by "consenting" -- in incestuous relationships, there can be a power dynamic where one person has a more dominant position in the family over the other, for example a parent or uncle/aunt; and it could be much harder to leave your family than an abusive lover/spouse. Therefore it could easily be one person forcing the other into a marriage. Also, incest babies.

As for polygamy -- here are my main arguments against: 1) most polygamistic traditions have been structured to empower men over women, and also enable sexual abuse of children / teenagers; 2) it can lead to rich men (the Donald Trumps / Hugh Hefners of the world) hoarding women, which could mean much fewer women to pair up with young, poor men, which in turn leads to social instability. Theoretically, it doesn't have to be -- it would be interesting if the world were full of polygamist clans like in Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress -- but if you're a cynic like me then it could easily be an institution that's going to be exploited by those with the most means to do so.

After going through a bitter divorce.. I am of the realization that at any time in a marriage, one partner can basically turn the other into an ATM without any recourse... basically, it legalizes one partner to be a parasite if they so chose.

After going through a bitter divorce.. I am of the realization that at any time in a marriage, one partner can basically turn the other into an ATM without any recourse... basically, it legalizes one partner to be a parasite if they so chose.

Then end alimony instead :)

It's more than just alimony. It's a child support issue also.

I had no issue supporting my kids, other than the fact that I also had to deal with servicing payments on 37k worth of debt she ran up on credit cards... when you make the money, they come after you and leave her alone.

Lets just say I had to disconnect the cable, stay at home a lot and read books, while it had almost no impact on my ex who walked out and took the kids.

And 8 months later the kids show up on my doorstep because they are tired of her nonsense... so I sued my ex for support and I got nothing.

The only good thing about the 37k debt is I used it as a bargaining chip to force her to either take it all and go into bankrupcy or let me eat it and never pay alimony ever again... and it worked.

MelGoesOnTour:The Flexecutioner: the phonetics of "phurst poast" is filtered because it was common for people to simply post as quickly as possible that phrase for speedy kudos, rather than have anything relevant to post.

Well THAT explains it then! (I totally forgot about the days when such a phrase was commonly, and annoyingly, used.

But back to my question---who's the chick with the creepy looking guy in the fp?

I answered that in the post just before that. That is Wang Dang with Sweet Poontang.

Who is the government to decide who can/can't be adopted by. Or who you can/can't marry? This is as backwards as not allowing blacks to vote or not allowing gays to marry.

Even if Gay marriage become legal in all 50, the INS will still proscute you for fraud if you get married just to get somone a green card. Personally I'd think about charging him under the incest statutes just for good measure

BarkingUnicorn:dwrash: If same sex marriage is made legal, what is to stop a father marrying his son to make sure 100% of his fortune is passed on with no inheritance taxes... just like husband to wife.

Existing marriage laws which forbid marriages of close relatives.

And you don't think that law will be challenged soon?.. and proved unconstitutional?

This entire question is about freedom to marry who we chose, regardless of gender... if the court allows same sex marriage, the laws about incest will follow the same route, because the fundamental question is the same.

dwrash:And you don't think that law will be challenged soon?.. and proved unconstitutional?

This entire question is about freedom to marry who we chose, regardless of gender... if the court allows same sex marriage, the laws about incest will follow the same route, because the fundamental question is the same.

So marrying someone of your own gender is fundamentally the same as marrying a close relative? Interesting how things work in your world. Is the sky there purple too?

Arkanaut:Fark_Guy_Rob: People have been against inter-racial marriage.People have been against gay marriage.People have been against polygamous marriage.And people have been against incestuous marriage.

And it's all just close-minded people forcing their viewpoints, their lifestyle on others.

Consenting adults should be afforded the same rights as everyone else. Anything less is wrong.

Well, it depends on what you mean by "consenting" -- in incestuous relationships, there can be a power dynamic where one person has a more dominant position in the family over the other, for example a parent or uncle/aunt; and it could be much harder to leave your family than an abusive lover/spouse. Therefore it could easily be one person forcing the other into a marriage. Also, incest babies.

As for polygamy -- here are my main arguments against: 1) most polygamistic traditions have been structured to empower men over women, and also enable sexual abuse of children / teenagers; 2) it can lead to rich men (the Donald Trumps / Hugh Hefners of the world) hoarding women, which could mean much fewer women to pair up with young, poor men, which in turn leads to social instability. Theoretically, it doesn't have to be -- it would be interesting if the world were full of polygamist clans like in Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress -- but if you're a cynic like me then it could easily be an institution that's going to be exploited by those with the most means to do so.

It's not the responsibility of womenkind to sacrifice their own interests in order to maintain social stability. The poor men don't have a right to a bride. There's many women out there that would prefer to get a successful rich guy rather than marry some ordinary guy working as a middle manager or in IT even if it means sharing the wealthy guy with a couple other women.

It's discriminatory, like all decisions. It's not arbitrary. You might disagree with the reasoning, but it exists and is not fundamentally illogical.

My parents are given rights that extend well beyond me reaching the age of majority.

Not really. Almost all of the rights parents have stem from the removal of those same rights from their children, so once someone reaches the age of majority there are basically no "parental rights" because they all revert to the child.

There are a few things like probate law that come into play should you cease to be a legal person, but even they only create default assumptions for things like medical proxy and inheritance, and they don't recognize parents or children differently than other family members. In those cases adoption is not necessary to redirect decision making; explicit statements of intent (like a will or health care power of attorney) override those assumptions much more easily. And the purpose of those assumptions is itself an effort to take advantage of the personal knowledge and insight family members might have, rather than relying on a court-appointed advocate with no knowledge of the original party; it's not a set of extra rights granted to family members, it's the court's effort to preserve the rights and will of the original party.